Didn't I hear that Kamala wanted to pass regulation to make it possible for incarcerated inmates to get gender reassignment surgery and the Govt would pay for it? Your tax dollars hard at work.
Boise St forfeits Mntn West volleyball tourny
- Thread starter JonathanW_rivals
- Start date
You don't need to pray for them, they're doing fine. But thanks for asking.
And it's such a huge issue that about a hundred people showed up for the finals, all of which I can guarantee you were family and significant others. Almost a certainty there will be more posts on this topic on this site than there were spectators at the finals.
How about balancing the federal budget?Saving medicare, saving social security, Modernizing defense, passing a real immigration bill. And about nine hundredd ninety five other things.
But hey, keep the outrage flowing . . .
But more to the point, why won't the NCAA address the issue? Seems to be part of their core mission and where the buck ought to stop
Last edited:
^
By the way, I ought to add that I agree with most of you. Men playing in women's sports is a really bad idea, but just like NIL and unlimited transfer portal, which are also very bad ideas, I think the NCAA should get off their *** and address the issue. Instead of the state and federal governments.
By the way, I ought to add that I agree with most of you. Men playing in women's sports is a really bad idea, but just like NIL and unlimited transfer portal, which are also very bad ideas, I think the NCAA should get off their *** and address the issue. Instead of the state and federal governments.
Oh, is the option saving Medicare or addressing an unfair sporting decision? I had not heard that. Thanks for that perspective.
Well, tbh, Congress these days is probably incapable of either one. But, because I am bored on a cold day, and I know you, above any and all posters, will respond ad infinitum on each and every topic, what is the next step on your legislative agenda, picking the 68 teams for the NCAA tournament? Choosing the 12 teams in the CFP? Reversing the Kentucky Derby decision a few years ago when they DQ'ed a horse in the stretch? What exactly does the NCAA do anyway if they won't decide the issue?Oh, is the option saving Medicare or addressing an unfair sporting decision? I had not heard that. Thanks for that perspective.
NYT article carried in today's LHL which stated: "Some players climbed into the stands, which were sparsely filled with about 100 fans, to take photos with friends and family". You are quoting the attendance from the SJSU boxscore, the UKAA boxscore of the Kentucky Louisville game reported attendance of over 58,000, which is probably 15,000 to 20,000 more than were actually there.
But 100 or 300 is splitting hairs, there was almost no one there.
(looks like you are reading something from Great Britain)
Gosh, much thanks for the kind and generous response.
I was not aware that only one thing could be worked on at a time, but if the NCAA won’t protect women’s sports and the intentions of Title IX have any substance, federal government action would be warranted, even if this does not impact your daughters directly.
I always respond to you kindly and generously just like you do to all of us posters.
International swimming association banned transgender swimmers after the NCAA meet mentioned above which is why Thomas did not go to Olympic trials, seems like NCAA could follow that example
I just don't get it, why would you want to compete against people whom you have a biological advantage over. There is more than winning. Wanting to prove yourself, prove to yourself, I think for most competitors/athlete's is a big reason they play/complete.
Your party has totally focused on creating and pushing aggressive, divisive, Marxist movements, but NOW you want to talk about actual issues? I'm sure you voted for more of the same last month, and if so, you have no credibility. None. All you can do is try to justify the leftist agenda, which is impossible outside of a mental institution.
The new administration, which I'm sure you rejected, has plans to take on government corruption, waste, and inefficiency like never before. Issues that will actually help the American people. And they're already fighting against corrupt, scumbag demo☭rats and RINOs just to get a suitable cabinet approved.
Biden pushed pRoGrEsSiVe idiocy including DEI on the entire country. Educational institutions, corporations, and damn near everything including the NCAA adopted it. Like Higher Ed., the NCAA is full of woke Marxists who love this ****.
If you're really interested in improving the life of the American people, you should maybe avoid the massive leftist propaganda machine and try getting informed. Until then, you can't be taken seriously.
Ok thanks, many of us appreciate the always helpful input from you on this and many other threads
I honestly don't know WTF it does at all other than collect an ocean of $ running the b ball tournament in March. Do they ever complete an investigation and level punishment anymore?
Just like most of the federal government.
Once DOGE gets rolling, it will be interesting to see who is really on board with cutting and reforming corrupt, wasteful, inefficient bureaucracy and who wants to obstruct.
There was a time just a few years ago when degenerate lunatics were not emboldened enough to even speak of such evil in open society, much less present it as a case before the Supreme Court. Disgusting!
pRoGrEsSiVe!11!!
pRoGrEsSiVe!11!!
The proposition above "ACLU transgender lawyer says children should be allowed to be castr*ted, stating that even two-year-olds know when it's time to transition" is obviously crazy and should never ever be allowed.
But . . . I listened to the four minute clip and the lawyer never said that. Who is Collin Rugg anyway? Looked him up and he is a 27 year old with a twitter feed. Is this the kind of "information" some of you guys listen to now and accept as true?
After the election, I swore I would start reading and listening to alternate media sources, especially on the far right, I started with listening to the three hour podcast of Trump and Joe Rogan. I may or may not change my mind on many issues, but at least I will know what some of you folks are hearing, that I have missed along the way.
But . . . I listened to the four minute clip and the lawyer never said that. Who is Collin Rugg anyway? Looked him up and he is a 27 year old with a twitter feed. Is this the kind of "information" some of you guys listen to now and accept as true?
After the election, I swore I would start reading and listening to alternate media sources, especially on the far right, I started with listening to the three hour podcast of Trump and Joe Rogan. I may or may not change my mind on many issues, but at least I will know what some of you folks are hearing, that I have missed along the way.
There was a time just a few years ago when degenerate lunatics were not emboldened enough to even speak of such evil in open society, much less present it as a case before the Supreme Court. Disgusting!
pRoGrEsSiVe!11!!
This spin is sickening. “Medical treatment,” “healthcare,” and “medical judgment based upon the best available information.” What she said correctly was that it IS NOT the kids who are consenting to treatment. That is the issue. Kids cannot consent to life altering mutations or chemical disrupting pharmaceuticals.
There are some pedophiles who would argue that they should be able to have sex with a child, especially if the parent consents, the child should be permitted to be abused. This is off the charts crazy.
I used to think 18 was an acceptable age to make your own decisions but this isn't the 90's or before. I'm convinced, what with all the push anymore for "mental health" , that it should be over 30 years of age. Possibly more. Regardless, anyone under 18 who thinks it's ok to "switch" genders needed new parents from the jump. These people are certifiable. It's evil and it's plain wrong.
I was expecting someone who posted a comment from a twitter feed from a 27 year old who just graduated from San Diego State U as being factual or accurate to have actually listened to the interview posted, before running with it. Is that too much to ask? Probably so on this board.
And by the way, I didn't say I agreed with the ACLU on this issue: ACLU frames the issue this way before the Court: "Whether Tennessee violates equal protection by enacting a sweeping health care ban preventing adolescents, parents and doctors from making decisions around gender affirming health care."
And you make a good point, which Tennessee counsel is sure to make today: If you allow parents to decide this issue for adolescents, does that establish bad precedent for other issues? I would definitely say that pedophilia is a bad example, given that is a felony in every state. But the commentator on CNN did ask the lawyer if this would affect the issue of men playing womens' sports which is actually the OP topic. (and no shocker here, the lawyer dodged the question, which will probably happen in court as well, but Supreme Court justices have a lot more success at making lawyers answer questions than TV commentators)
Case is United States vs. Skrmetti and here is the S. Court website and looks like you can get a transcript of the oral arguments if you want to get some more accurate info, maybe even by tomorrow case is to be argued today:
Supreme Court Oral Arguments
Or you can wait for Mr. Rugg's next breathless pronouncement on what was said in court, and run with it.
I too watched the link video. Are you suggesting that castration is not included in the possible “gender affirming care” options?
It is not mentioned at all, that is just your take. But that question may very well be put to the ACLU attorney today, seems like a fair question to me. (Anyone who would let their little boy be castrated is certifiably nuts, and any surgeon who would perform such a procedure should lose their license, so I would hope the question is posed)
FWIW Wall Street Journal has an editorial today very much in agreement with you on the issue. But it only mentions hormone therapy.
Last edited:
I am not sure it is a “take.” “Gender affirming care” has included both chemical and surgical castration. Just because the lawyer did not use that word does not mean that is the not subject of the discussion. Yes, CNN did not press the lawyer and permitted the lawyer to use euphemisms and control the narrative, but this discussion inherently includes that issue. Ruegg is not wrong.
Part of "Gender Affirming Care" "treatment" is surgical or chemical castration. Stop looking for a way to deflect. It's disingenuous or a sign of ignorance.
Dont doubt that is true, but for children? Two year olds? Are you suggesting 30 year olds should not have the right to choose?
By the way, did you actually listen to the interview before you shared Rugg's take? If not who is being disingenuous?
Of course I listened to it. This case is about children. Stop trying to deflect.
Are you suggesting 5 year-olds or 10 year-olds should be castrated if they feel they are a girl??
Hell no for reasons I have already stated. You are just trying to start or prolong a non argument. We are in agreement.
FWIW I think Tennessee wins this case. Especially in view of the precedent set by the recent ruling limiting abortion rights depending on the state, I am not sure how this is any different. Secondly if the statute bars gender affirming care for both male and female, how is it violating the equal protection clause?
He votes for democrats knowing that they always pack the court with radical activist leftists who support this ****, so he supports the agenda by default in the most powerful way he can.
Plus he attempts to deflect and muddy the pristine waters of this clear case of insanity during discussion.
Then he backtracks and says the conservative judges will save the day and over-rule his f*ckd up choices.
If he's against it, he's too dumb to know how the system works and unwilling to take his responsibility in it.
OK, here we go, the same song in every thread. So your rhetorical brilliance compels me to retreat. But because you, me, and Caveman are the only ones still responding to this thread. I think I'll let it go for a while until we see what the arguments are in the Supreme Court.
Last edited:
It's the truth.
Nobody is always right about everything, but I can't think of ANYTHING the radical left is EVER solely right about that would warrant giving them any power to make decisions for the people of our country. Especially an extremely important issue like mutilating children.
By your choices, you apparently disagree.
Oh, there will be plenty of obstructionists…. Lets hope these guys have the fortitude, and political capital to get it done…..
Yes. They're ALREADY obstructing. I'll never understand why people vote for these shitbags.
I simply responded in kind. In fact, my comment was far more relevant than your question to Ida, because the trans lawyer in the video clip actually suggests 8 year-olds should have chemical and/or surgical castration.
Well, that is not what was said but we at least had a civil exchange which is progress for this board, and I thank you for that.
I am now really curious to read some of the oral argument and will do so just to see if some of the questions we raised were actually asked in court
First report from the Supreme Court arguments indicate the conservative majority is inclined to uphold the Tennessee statute for some of the same reasons I mentioned above, although Gorsuch did not ask any questions which the reporter found to be surprising.
It is progress to see your civil conversation. Thank you.
And, we disagree. It IS what was said in the video. The trans lawyer claims that some people knew they were trans as early as 2 years old and had to suffer for 6-7 years before receiving relief. The “relief” at issue and just previously discussed by the trans lawyer as the issue in the case is medical intervention. Medical intervention is chemical and/or surgical. You have to remove the context of the discussion to conclude otherwise, as the law does not prohibit parents from portraying their children as trans. It’s a medical intervention issue.